Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

grublets t1_j64jo5i wrote

Having a camera doesn’t negate the need to shoulder check and use your eyes & mirrors.


sh_hobbies t1_j64o6ny wrote

Most cars aren't built like they used to be. Windows are higher up and don't have the same amount of visibility since they crutch the camera. The back window is good for seeing headlights behind you while you drive, but it's a total blind spot in a parking lot.


[deleted] t1_j64ozdn wrote



sh_hobbies t1_j64puik wrote

The downvotes would indicate folks didn't understand my comment. I'm not complaining or faulting anything in the design... but you can't just say "turn your head and use your eyes; don't depend on the camera!" Because your view is obscured by the design.


[deleted] t1_j64rp58 wrote



asdaaaaaaaa t1_j655qhs wrote

Was going to say, they're huge now. I really wish the US had something akin to old-school smaller trucks. I had an old roommate who drove a Ford Ranger, I loved that thing. I would love to get an imported mini-truck, if I didn't have to worry so much about other drivers.


darksoft125 t1_j6843ha wrote

Its crazy how big trucks have gotten. The Ford Maverick is considered a "compact truck," but it's similar in size and capability to an F-150 from the 80s!


asdaaaaaaaa t1_j685lwi wrote

F-150's are basically what 250's or commercial trucks used to be as well. I remember my dad's F-150, that thing was small in comparison to modern SUV's and trucks, same with the Nissan squarebody as well.


Golluk t1_j66q4y5 wrote

Sadly getting rid of it soon, but I have an '03 Ranger. Visibility is amazing as your essentially in a Turret with big windows in every direction.


lmaoidc29 t1_j659a80 wrote

Why import one ? We have plenty of mini trucks in the us unless you want something that wasn't sold here


cranktheguy t1_j65daf0 wrote

The new Ranger is the size of the old F-150. I'm not sure what small trucks you're referring to.


Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65jw39 wrote

Coincidentally the Ford Maverick is one example.

*Edit for spelling.


cranktheguy t1_j65kpxz wrote

1996 Ford Ranger (base model) wheelbase = 107.9"

1996 Ford F150 (base model) wheelbase = 116.8"

2023 Ford Maverick 2023 wheelbase = 121.1″


Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65l5g6 wrote

Sure. I've oddly enough had all 3 (well, early 2000's F-150). Did you pick the 2 door model by accident for the first 2?


cranktheguy t1_j65lmn1 wrote

No and no - those were both the regular cabs.

Edit: misread your comment, yes, I picked the base model, which is two doors. Because that's what a small pickup used to be.


Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65ly9z wrote

Ahh. That's your issue. The Maverick is a crew cab, and the standard size of the old ones nobody bought sales wise besides for fleet vehicles. The third door was where it was at :) haha.


cranktheguy t1_j65vi2o wrote

The issue is they don't make small (like the two door models) anymore. Half my friends in high school had small two door trucks like that, but they were a bunch of nobodies, so maybe half right.


Oddity_Odyssey t1_j66h8wm wrote

Have you ever seen a 95 Chevy s-10 or a 98 Toyota Tacoma. You can fit one person and a bag in those things.


errie_tholluxe t1_j6c3sws wrote

Something I noticed in LA one day. The S-10 is actually smaller than a modern Camry.


jefplusf t1_j65kkjz wrote

Maverick, Santa Cruz come to mind


cranktheguy t1_j65m359 wrote

1996 Ford Ranger (base model) wheelbase = 107.9"

1996 Ford F150 (base model) wheelbase = 116.8"

2023 Ford Maverick wheelbase = 121.1″

2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz wheelbase = 118.3"


jefplusf t1_j65ravx wrote

Why a wheelbase comparison as opposed to total length comparison?


cranktheguy t1_j65rsoz wrote

Wheelbase is the usual way to compare cars, but if you Google the length over all the rankings don't change. I'm on my phone right now though but you can look it up.


GoArray t1_j675nrh wrote

>We have plenty of mini trucks

The only 2, came out in 2021. You'd have to go back to the 90's for anything comparable. "Plenty" is a stretch by any definition of the word.


Didactic_Tactics_45 t1_j68x8sr wrote

You make a fair and accurate point, but it still doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the driver. The parent comment relates to the need for cautious driving if visibility is low. If you can't see clearly, the driver should back out very slowly until they can verify it is clear to back out completely. Pedestrians and passing vehicles have plenty of time to avoid you or alert you to their presence. I'm speculating of course but I'd guess these accidents are caused by drivers moving too quickly without visual confirmation that the path is clear. This is always the driver's responsibility with or without camera assistance.

*edit: spelling


veringer t1_j68j6an wrote

I have to imagine mirrors still work if your head and neck don't.


letigre87 t1_j66woc6 wrote

There was an article in an automotive magazine years ago about how an inch changed car design. It pointed out auto makers had to raise the hood off the engine for pedestrian safety and when that happened it changed all the lines on cars. The raised hood changed where it intersected the windshield and carried the body lines to the back essentially slanting the windshield and raising the hips. With everything lifted higher it meant the proportions were off and they had to stuff larger wheels in the now huge wheel wells. Now I gotta find the article.


vegetaman t1_j679z34 wrote

And then those damn pillars have gotten so massive it's hard to see pedestrians.


RKRagan t1_j65c44h wrote

My work van has no back windows. Hell it doesn’t even come with a rearview.


Now_Wait-4-Last_Year t1_j665f3w wrote

That can't be legal to make you drive that thing, surely?


NicklesBe t1_j666asx wrote

Have you never seen a work van? Most work vans don't have back windows.


Tibbaryllis2 t1_j66i1tz wrote

ASAIK, only the front driver/passenger mirrors, windows, and front windshield are required on vehicles. Everything behind the driver can be entirely solid.


finalremix t1_j66xaiu wrote

Yup. And in some places, it's an either/or situation. If you don't have a passenger sideview mirror, you need a rearview on the glass. One or the other is required at minimum.


round-earth-theory t1_j67iu95 wrote

You can backup without a rearview, but it does require a manual inspection of what's behind you before starting. As long as someone doesn't dart behind before you start, it should be safe.


RKRagan t1_j66iqg7 wrote

Its a brand new Ford Transit 350 and it has a camera and sensors. But I still check my side mirrors as well.


AcidTWister t1_j64xams wrote

See: The Rezvani Vengeance

With a back view so inaccessible, the rear view mirror is a screen that projects your rear camera image.


master-shake69 t1_j65dcuj wrote

Well to be fair I'd expect something like that to be in some sort of convoy instead of driving around by itself.


malphonso t1_j65xo4p wrote

Looks like something from the Crackdown games.


finalremix t1_j66xnml wrote

That seriously looks like the SUV before you get the spider jump. I love it.


finalremix t1_j66xm09 wrote

Okay, I fucking hate contemporary vehicles... but that I'd buy if I wasn't making a professor's salary.


Confident-Area-6946 t1_j66j660 wrote

Now youre speaking my honda crv language, its not that small of a rear window but its still small and optically it looks like people are tailgating me.


Noisy_Toy t1_j64s0b5 wrote

>since they crutch the camera

What does crutch mean in this sense?


sh_hobbies t1_j64tgko wrote

They use the camera to compensate for lack of visibility.


Noisy_Toy t1_j656f73 wrote

Thanks. I’ve never heard it used as a verb. Wasn’t sure if it was new usage or an autocorrect!


yawetag12 t1_j65lj8f wrote

>Wasn’t sure if it was new usage or an autocorrect!

It's been used as a verb for almost 400 years.


asdaaaaaaaa t1_j655tv4 wrote

They use it as a crutch, basically are dependent on it to function.


N8CCRG t1_j64k0jh wrote

>Their 360-degree rearview cameras may malfunction and display a blue screen that impacts the ability of a driver to see behind them.

That's not what this recall is about though.


grublets t1_j64k9y5 wrote

Right, their screens were blue. So back up like people did before rear cameras were a thing.


The69BodyProblem t1_j64l1nk wrote

Iirc the backup cam has been mandated in new cars for a while, so this may be something they're required to do by the government


mtarascio t1_j64nt0s wrote

Yeah, if someone had their rear view mirror broken off, you wouldn't say the broken rear mirror caused the accident.


tinman82 t1_j64orm6 wrote

Some new cars don't have rear view mirrors. Just a mirror shaped screen that shows the rear view camera all the time. Also some vehicles you just can't seeout the back. But yeah no excuse for not using mirrors and if the back up is acting fucky it would be worth a walk around to save a toddler or dog.


n3m37h t1_j64qhoy wrote

Not made for anywhere that had snow in otherwords


tinman82 t1_j65d1jf wrote

Panel vans are just a fact of life but yeah the other group is the new sports cars with tiny rear windows. Mustangs are spinny in good weather I'd love to see them in the snow.


n3m37h t1_j65d9o8 wrote

Any high gp rear wheel car is shit in snow, not enough weight for the torque


FordTech81 t1_j663mg7 wrote

Still spinny in snow. We have a 13 charger and when it snows it doesn't move from the driveway. 4500lbs and rwd with a V8, snow/ice is not friendly. I can make it to work, but we just mainly use the awd Ford edge in snowy weather. Much better handling.


dogswontsniff t1_j66nzos wrote

Hell chargers and mustangs are only decent in a straight line on a GOOD weather day


FordTech81 t1_j66zd69 wrote

Yep. They don't corner worth shit. But they sure are fun.


thegreger t1_j687bm1 wrote

I was reversed into, while stationary and honking my horn for attention, by a young driver in a huge-ass SUV whose excuse was that she couldn't see me.

If you're not 100% certain what's behind your car, you do NOT reverse. If in doubt: Stop, get your lazy ass out of the car and check, then go back into the car while keeping an eye on your surroundings for anything that might enter the space you're reversing into.

Why is it that the dumbest drivers always feel like they must have the biggest cars with the most tech? If every SUV driver were forced to drive a Fiat Panda, the world would be a better place.


GoArray t1_j64krcc wrote

It's exactly what the issue is.

You can't physically look over your shoulder use an analog mirror, the fix will obviously be to fix the camera / 'viewscreen', but perhaps dropping the ability to actually see behind you was a bad move.


finalremix t1_j66xz53 wrote

Seriously, visibility out of these new vehicles is terrible. I used to think the Chrysler 300 had bad visibility, but it's like having bay windows around you compared to newer models.


joeysflipphone t1_j64p3er wrote

Yes exactly. I have my almost entire cervical spine fused from c2-c3 to C7-t1, so my neck (it's essentially a long titanium bar) range of motion is extremely limited. I use my camera as an assistance, but always look as much as possible and use mirrors. I couldn't imagine just looking one place and being like, ok good to go.


NikeSwish t1_j67ai1v wrote

If my camera works why wouldn’t I trust it? I can literally see what my bumper sees. I don’t even turn my head when I go into reverse between my rear view mirror and my backup camera


piecat t1_j67dt2d wrote

It should be the goal to not need mirrors


Iron_Chic t1_j64tt8r wrote

Yep! I totally smashed the rear window of my car trying to back into a space using only the camera. Turns out there was a low-hanging pipe near the ceiling which would've been easy to see had my lazy-ass looked over my shoulder while backing in. Because the camera is plac3d in such a way that it only looks at the ground behind you, I missed seeing the high hazard and had to get the window replaced.


smoke1966 t1_j66ugv6 wrote

sideswiped a lamp post base with a late model navigator once for same reason. can't see squat out the back of these new cars.. I'll stick to my 04 oddessy till the doors fall off, great visibility.